By Richard Curtain, The Sense of the Faithful Editorial Team

The first Assembly of the Fifth Plenary Council (PC) of the Catholic Church in Australia is to start on Saturday 2 October 2021 and be conducted online until 10 October 2021. The second Assembly is to be held in Sydney on 4-9 July 2022. The Assemblies will have 278 members (formerly called delegates) who have been nominated by diocesan bishops. The members include ordained clerics, leaders and members of religious congregations. Lay members will include those who are paid employees of church affiliated service providers in areas such as education and health as well as ordinary parishioners.

A key issue the Plenary Council (PC) will have to address is how to manage conflict. One approach used in large group meetings is to focus on finding common ground. However, the ground rules set by Canon Law, the diverse composition and online format of the PC will militate against this. It is quite possible that the first Assembly will achieve little in terms of positive outcomes. Indeed, it may have the opposite effect by highlighting the sharp divergences in views about the changes needed. This latter outcome may be a necessary step to encourage PC members to make concerted efforts to provide a more effective and open process for the second Assembly.

The purpose of this note is to outline what elements need to be in the processes the PC uses to conduct its business. I am proposing, from my experience, how a bottom-up process has been successful in producing productive outcomes.

The problem of an unrepresentative membership The selection of members was done by the bishops in an opaque way, without reference to public available selection criteria. The profile of members is strongly clerical with no consistency between dioceses in the numbers of Catholic laity PC members. Of the 17 PC members nominated to represent Australia’s largest diocese, Melbourne, only four are lay members. In contrast, from Sydney, a smaller archdiocese, has 22 PC members, 10 of whom are from the laity. The Archdiocese of Brisbane has half of its ten PC members who are lay. The Archdiocese of Adelaide has five lay members of its contingent of eight.

A major objective of the PC process must be to establish a common ground among the members. This is required sothat differences between members in terms of their backgrounds, goals, self-interest (i.e., whether or not their livelihood depends on Church funding) and their expectations about what they can achieve can be managed to achieve productive outcomes. The PC facilitators will need to adopt a process so that potential conflicts that thesedifferences are likely to generate can be aired and addressed productively.

Two recent Vatican documents explain well what the synodal process is Austen Ivereigh’s article in LaCroix International (18 September) entitled ‘The Spirit in the Assembly: Preparing for the Synod of Bishops' gathering on synodality’ confirmed my fears about what I saw as missing from the Australian PC’s synodal process is. That article, well worth a read in itself, alerted me to the publication of two new Vatican documents in early September. One is For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, and Mission: Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality: ‘Official Handbook for Listening and Discernment in Local Churches: First Phase (October 2021-April 2022) in Dioceses and Bishops' Conferences Leading up to the Assembly of Bishops in Synod in October 2023’. The other related document is the preparatory document for the Synod of the Bishops with the title: Preparatory Document for the 16th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 07.09.2021.

The first document offers advice on how a synod should be conducted. I was gratified to see that many of therecommended attitudes for participating in the synodal process (Para 2.3) and the pitfalls to avoid (Para 2.4) are remarkably similar to those that I have highlighted in this note. Attachment 2 is a four-page extract from the Official Handbook, highlighting in colour those parts that I think have relevance for the points I am making here. The rest of thedocument is worth a close read as well.

The need for an agreed process to find common ground and resolve conflicts This note draws on my experience of being involved in search conferences on workplace reform in the early 1990sand in writing about and conducting public consultations on proposed public policy changes. These experiences have highlighted for me the value of following a group process based on having a clear objective and focusing on identifying future trends in a global context as a means of finding common ground (see Attachment 1). As Weisbord and Janoff note in their 2010 book, discussed below, this approach reduces a group’s tendency to fight or flee. Exploring the whole before acting on any part helps participants to manage their anxieties about differences. ‘Keeping the focus on the task rather than on interpersonal exchanges enables progress on emotionally chargedissues’.

Also crucial to the success of the future search process is the emphasis placed on self-managing groups within theprocess. This refers to the importance of allowing small groups of six to eight to organise their own deliberations without a facilitator and sharing key tasks in rotation such as discussion leader, recorder, reporter and timekeeper. This means that the role of facilitators is a narrow one, standing back from any involvement in small group discussions, other than to encourage the group to keep going. Their role is to encourage a dialogue about theparticipants’ common ground. These and related issues are discussed below in more detail.

I am not suggesting that this specific format used in future search conferences can be used for the plenary council assemblies. It is a process that would be more appropriate at a diocesan or parish level, where the participants have a strong sense of a collective identity and common purpose. It is also important that canon law does not apply to how the meeting is to be conducted. However, it is worth spelling out what the key elements of a fair process should be forthe PC. Before doing that, it is important to discuss what appears to be the proposed process for the PC.

Facing up to the differences in the status and expectations of PC members Having a fair process is a crucial element in any consultation involving participants with widely differing viewpoints,knowledge of and understanding of the issues and willingness to change. As Pope Francis notes in his discussion of the tensions with the synodal process:

Synods produce intense discussion, which is good: they involve different reactions and responses to those who think differently or have particular positions. We do not all react in the same way. We have also seen in many cases how, faced with disagreement, different groupings attempting to interfere in the synodal process try to impose their ideas, either by applying pressure inside the synod, or outside of it, by distorting and discrediting the views of those who do not think as they do. (Pope Francis, 2020, Let us Dream: The path to a better future. Simon and Schuster London, p 84.)

Need to acknowledge PC Members expectations will change as the PC progresses It is likely that PC Members will go through a series of stages. They will start with high expectations about change or alternatively have expectations about not wanting to change. Then they will become aware of opposing viewpoints as they engage in discussions. This will lead to confusion, anger and disillusionment, creating a state of high anxiety among participants. It is often this anxiety that creates the pressure to find a way out by looking for ways of bridgingthe gap that are not obvious at first. This can result in breakthroughs to achieve agreed outcomes based on what is common to those involved.

Frances recognises that this tension and confusion is part of a healthy process: The danger of becoming trapped in conflict is that we lose perspective. Our horizons shrink and we close off paths the spirit is showing us. Sometimes working together means continuing to endure the disagreements, leaving them to be transcended on a higher level at a later time. (Pope Francis, 2020, pp 91-92.)

It is my concern that a process or series of steps are needed to help people deal with these differing expectations and frustrations that will not inevitably emerge during the meeting. An agreed process is needed to establish a common ground and resolve conflicts. The process should also include setting the ground rules for working together andexplaining what methods will be used to make it easier for such a large group to work together.

The importance of having an agreed fair process However, to reach this desirable result, the initial problem of a lack of trust, or its reverse - too much trust, by the Members in the PC’s appointed leaders (ie the bishops) has to be acknowledged. A way to do this used in workplacesand in public policy consultations is to put in place a fair process for conducting the meeting or consultation. This greatly increases the chances that participants will accept the deliberation’s outcomes, even if they disagree with the content.

What is the process planned for the PC? The most recent PlenaryPost 36 newsletter provides some details of the preparation of PC Members on how the PC will be conducted. Of note is the reference to ‘formation on discernment and the practice of Spiritual Conversations for decision-making, teaching and learning on conscious and unconscious bias when working in groups’.

The newsletter goes on to state that: In future editions of PlenaryPost, we will include some of the formation, tools and resources with you all -- in particular the online approach to practising Spiritual Conversations, which could be wonderfully rich for many of our parishes and local groups right now.

The reference to Spiritual Conversations appears to be to the method outlined in the book by Fr Brian GallagherMSC 'Communal Wisdom: A way of discernment for a pilgrim Church' (revised 2019). I have read the book and found this description of his approach on the MSC website here under the heading Communal discernment a goodsummary: As in individual discernment, the starting point is the conviction that God can and does enter into arelationship with a group, the conviction that there can be a group experience of God’s presence and guidance. An essential prerequisite is the desire to focus outside one’s own wants, or rational thought, and a desire as a group to seek the wisdom of God.

In this he looks at ways a group comes to a decision:

1. simply seeking by vote, what the majority consider the correct way

2. working towards consensus, so that the group, as a whole can accept the final decision,even when there are some for whom this is not their preferred decision but can accept the group position

3. discernment of God’s spirit working in the group.
   

This third method requires a facilitator experienced in discerning and able to help the group nametheir experience of God’s Spirit. This approach calls for a willingness to give time for personal and group discernment, for waiting on God, and having sufficient maturity to recognise the inner movement of the Spirit, from other distractions such as the desire to make a quick decision, resistance, lack of trust.

Is this process up to the task? The approach proposed in 'Communal Wisdom …' has only been used for parish groups and religious congregations. It assumes a high degree of underlying agreement about the group’s common purpose. A review by Fr Andrew Doohan (4 November 2019) notes: To be sure, this is not a one-size-fits-all approach to the task of communal discernment and thuscommunal decision making. It is, however, a guide that would assist any group — parish, religious community, sub-parish group — to take a more deliberate approach to the task of listening to what God is asking of them. The approach outlined in Communal Wisdom would be a good place from which to start the practice of giving more attention to a wise, Spirit-inspired, and communal approach to decision making, particularly in light of the issues now facing the Australian churchand in the lead-up to the Plenary Council 2020.

A key question is whether this proposed approach is suitable for the Plenary Council?

What should the PC process include? Pope Francis offers three principles to guide the synodal process.

In walking together, reading the signs of the times, open to the new things of the spirit, we might take some lessons from this ancient church perspective of synodality which I have sought to revive.

First, we need a respectful, mutual listening, free of ideology and predetermined agendas. The aim is not to reach agreement by means of a contest between opposing positions, but to journey together to seek God's will allowing differences to harmonise. Most important of all is the synodal spirit: to meet each other with respect and trust to believe in our shared unity and to receive the new thing that the Spirit wishes to reveal to us.

Second, sometimes this new thing means resolving the disputed questions through overflow. Breakthroughs happen often at the last minute, leading to a meeting of the minds that allows us to move forward. But the overflow might equally mean an invitation to change our way of thinking and our lenses, to shed our rigidity and our agendas, and look in places we never notice before.

Third, this is a patient process, which does not come easily to our impatient age. But perhaps in lock down we've learned better to approach it. (Pope Francis, 2020, p 93.)

See also Attachment 2, para 2.3, for further insights from Pope Francis about the synodal process.

Conclusion How the Plenary Council is conducted was going to be difficult enough in a face-to-face meeting. But a key benefitwould have been the opportunity for people to meet informally and to reflect on what was happening or nothappening. Now that the PC is to be conducted online, the scope for informal exchanges at tea and meal breaks is not there. The problem with online meetings is that they are devoid of emotion, due to their limited form of personal encounter. An online mechanism for informal exchanges needs to be set up but even this will have severe limitations.

The online format is likely to produce a clash between top-down directives on how to proceed and allowing bottom-up discernment processes to be used. The institutional history of the Church strongly suggests that the top-downapproach will be the preferred approach. However, many examples also exist in the Church’s formal deliberations, such as at Vatican II, and in recent church synods, as Francis notes, where the imposed agenda was dismissed by the meeting’s participants in favour of an entirely different approach. If the first session of the PC is seen by most PC members as too controlled from the top, the second PC session may be an opportunity for a very different approach.

*********************************

Attachment 1: Future Search Conferences The following description is slightly adapted from an article by Herb Stevenson.

Future search is an interactive large group planning meeting that enables people to find common ground, create a shared vision and devise an implementation strategy, all in less than three days. It is used around the world to transform systems' capability for cooperative action.

One reason for its popularity is that future search has turned out to be a remarkably effective and flexible methodology. These methods have helped people act on issues they cared about when they had previously beenstopped by any of a number of barriers, such as: not enough of the people with information or passion or decision-making authority involved; don’t know how to begin the change process; or people didn't understand the issues and consequences well enough to want change.

Future search helps overcome those barriers because it brings together people with information, authority, resources and passion, helps them find common ground and purpose, and enables them to plan action.

The Success Principles: four key principles are the foundation of the success of future search.

• Get the 'whole system' in the room. Ideally, a cross section of stakeholders is needed who, together, have theresources, authority, skill, and knowledge to act, if they choose, without asking permission from anyone not present. This criterion alone guarantees reality about whether a desirable action plan will be taken.

• Explore the whole before seeking to fix any part. In future search two thirds of the conference is spent in joint exploration, of the past, present trends, future aspirations, where people learn from each other and create a portrait of the whole that no one person can put together alone. No action is attempted until everyone has been involved in this whole systems assessment.

• Focus on the future and common ground rather than problems and conflicts. Nothing is swept under the rug … treat conflicts and problems as information about what is, not as action items. The action agenda is thediscovery of common ground and what people are willing to do right now. No time is spent seeking to reconcile deeply held opposing convictions, only to validate them.

• Self-manage small groups and action planning. People manage all small group tasks without expertfacilitators. They take responsibility for what they are ready, willing and able to do. By 'voting with their feet' (e.g. signing up to act, rather than prioritising as a group what they think should be done) they create de facto priorities likely to be carried forward.
  

The Meeting Design: The meeting can involve 60-80 people working in one room at one time, all contributing to the same agenda. In the meeting, people explore together their shared past, present, desired future, and common ground. Participants supply all the content. That's important because participants realise that they do have everything they need to make decisions, set priorities, and act. Action planning is put off until every person has a picture of the whole that none had at the start Leadership is shared. Anyone who wishes can take leadership roles in small groups, public reports and whole groupdialogues. The key to success is matching purpose and participants so that those with authority, resources, and need are in dialogue the whole time. This enables people to be as realistic as humans can be about their aims and potential.

The role of a facilitator: A philosophy and theory of whole systems change undergirds the practice of future searchfacilitation. Facilitators help people stay whole and task focused. They do not attempt to make up for perceived groupdeficits, nor to teach skills people do not already have. Facilitators observe the following precepts in managing futuresearches: each participant is an expert on his/her own experience, thoughts and feelings; all ideas are relevant, everyone is doing the best they can with what they have; people only do what they are ready, willing and able to do; people choose for themselves whether and how to join in.

The facilitator's task is to provide a structure that enables people to cooperate and commit if they wish, not to diagnose behaviour, or inquire into motives. Diverse groups come together more fully when they discover their own meanings and interpretations rather than have facilitators summarise for them. Future search facilitation centres on giving instructions, observing time boundaries, and making space for anyone who wants to speak. Facilitators become active only if a group abandons its core task or a member is at risk of being scapegoated.

Attachment 2: Extract from For a Synodal Church: Communion, Participation, and Mission Vademecum for the Synod on Synodality. The Official Handbook for Listening and Discernment in Local Churches: First Phase [October 2021–April 2022] in Dioceses and Bishops' Conferences Leading up to the Assembly of Bishops in Synod in October 2023, dated 7 September 2021,

pp 11–13. 2.3 Attitudes for participating in the Synodal Process On various occasions, Pope Francis has shared his vision for what the practice of synodality looks like concretely. The following are particular attitudes that enable genuine listening and dialogue as we participate in the Synodal Process.

• Being synodal requires time for sharing: We are invited to speak with authentic courage and honesty (parrhesia) in order to integrate freedom, truth, and charity. Everyone can grow in understanding through dialogue.

• Humility in listening must correspond to courage in speaking: Everyone has the right to be heard, just as everyone has the right to speak. Synodal dialogue depends on courage both in speaking and in listening. It is not about engaging in a debate to convince others. Rather, it is welcoming what others say as a way by which the Holy Spirit can speak for the good of all (1 Corinthians 12:7).

• Dialogue leads us to newness: We must be willing to change our opinions based on what we have heard from others.

• Openness to conversion and change: We can often be resistant to what the Holy Spirit is trying to inspire us to undertake. We are called to abandon attitudes of complacency and comfort that lead us to make decisions purely onthe basis of how things have been done in the past.

• Synods are an ecclesial exercise in discernment: Discernment is based on the conviction that God is at work in the world, and we are called to listen to what the Spirit suggests to us.

• We are signs of a Church that listens and journeys: By listening, the Church follows the example of God himself,who listens to the cry of his people. The Synodal Process provides us with the opportunity to open ourselves to listenin an authentic way, without resorting to ready-made answers or pre-formulated judgments.

• Leave behind prejudices and stereotypes: We can be weighed down by our weaknesses and sinfulness. The firststep towards listening is freeing our minds and hearts from prejudices and stereotypes that lead us on the wrong path, towards ignorance and division.

• Overcome the scourge of clericalism: The Church is the Body of Christ filled with different charisms in which each member has a unique role to play. We are all interdependent on one another and we all share an equal dignityamidst the holy People of God. In the image of Christ, true power is service. Synodality calls upon pastors to listen attentively to the flock entrusted to their care, just as it calls the laity to freely and honestly express their views.Everyone listens to one other out of love, in a spirit of communion and our common mission. Thus, the power of the Holy Spirit is manifested in manifold ways in and through the entire People of God.

• Cure the virus of self-sufficiency: We are all in the same boat. Together we form the Body of Christ. Setting aside the mirage of self-sufficiency, we are able to learn from each other, journey together, and be at the service of one another. We can build bridges beyond the walls that sometimes threaten to separate us – age, gender, wealth, ability, education, etc.

• Overcoming ideologies: We must avoid the risk of giving greater importance to ideas than to the reality of the life of faith that people live in a concrete way.

• Give rise to hope: Doing what is right and true does not seek to attract attention or make headlines, but rather aims at being faithful to God and serving His People. We are called to be beacons of hope, not prophets of doom.

• Synods are a time to dream and “spend time with the future”: We are encouraged to create a local process that inspires people, with no one excluded to create a vision of the future filled with the joy of the Gospel. The following dispositions will help participants (cf. Christus Vivit):

An innovative outlook: To develop new approaches, with creativity and a certain audacity.

Being inclusive: A participatory and co-responsible Church, capable of appreciating its own rich variety, embraces all those we often forget or ignore.

An open mind: Let us avoid ideological labels and make use of all methodologies that have borne fruit.

Listening to each and every one: By learning from one another, we can better reflect the wonderful multi-faceted reality that Christ’s Church is meant to be.

An understanding of “journeying together”: To walk the path that God calls the Church to undertake for the third millennium.

Understanding the concept of a co-responsible Church: To value and involve the unique role and vocation of each member of the Body of Christ, for the renewal and building up of the whole Church.

Reaching out through ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue: To dream together and journey with one another throughout the entire human family.

2.4 Avoiding pitfalls As on any journey, we need to be aware of possible pitfalls that could hamper our progress during this time of synodality. The following are several pitfalls that must be avoided in order to promote the vitality and fruitfulness of the Synodal Process.

1. The temptation of wanting to lead ourselves instead of being led by God. Synodality is not a corporate strategic exercise. Rather it is a spiritual process that is led by the Holy Spirit. We can be tempted to forget that we are pilgrims and servants on the path marked out for us by God. Our humble efforts of organization and coordination areat the service of God who guides us on our way. We are clay in the hands of the divine Potter (Isaiah 64:8).

2. The temptation to focus on ourselves and our immediate concerns. The Synodal Process is an opportunity to open up, to look around us, to see things from other points of view, and to move out in missionary outreach to the peripheries. This requires us to think long-term. This also means broadening our perspectives to the dimensions of the entire Church and asking questions, such as: What is God’s plan for the Church here and now? How can we implement God’s dream for the Church on the local level?

3. The temptation to only see “problems.” The challenges, difficulties, and hardships facing our world and ourChurch are many. Nevertheless, fixating on the problems will only lead us to be overwhelmed, discouraged, and cynical. We can miss the light if we focus only on the darkness. Instead of focusing only on what is not going well, let us appreciate where the Holy Spirit is generating life and see how we can let God work more fully.

4. The temptation of focusing only on structures. The Synodal Process will naturally call for a renewal of structures at various levels of the Church, in order to foster deeper communion, fuller participation, and more fruitful mission. At the same time, the experience of synodality should not focus first and foremost on structures, but on the experience of journeying together to discerning the path forward, inspired by the Holy Spirit. The conversion and renewal of structures will come about only through the on-going conversion and renewal of all the members of the Body of Christ.

5. The temptation not to look beyond the visible confines of the Church. In expressing the Gospel in our lives, laywomen and men act as a leaven in the world in which we live and work. A Synodal Process is a time to dialogue withpeople from the worlds of economics and science, politics and culture, arts and sport, the media and social initiatives. It will be a time to reflect on ecology and peace, life issues and migration. We must keep the bigger picture in view tofulfil our mission in the world. It is also an opportunity to deepen the ecumenical journey with other Christian denominations and to deepen our understanding with other faith traditions.

6. The temptation to lose focus of the objectives of the Synodal Process. As we proceed along the journey of the Synod, we need to be careful that, while our discussions might be wide- ranging, the Synodal Process maintains thegoal of discerning how God calls us to walk forward together. No one Synodal Process is going to resolve all ourconcerns and problems. Synodality is an attitude and an approach of moving forward in a co-responsible way that is open to welcoming God’s fruits together over time.

7. The temptation of conflict and division. “That they may all be one” (John 17:21). This is the ardent prayer of Jesusto the Father, asking for unity among his disciples. The Holy Spirit leads us deeper into communion with God and one another. The seeds of division bear no fruit. It is vain to try to impose one’s ideas on the whole Body through pressureor to discredit those who feel differently.

8. The temptation to treat the Synod as a kind of a parliament. This confuses synodality with a ‘political battle’ inwhich in order to govern one side must defeat the other. It is contrary to the spirit of synodality to antagonize others or to encourage divisive conflicts that threaten the unity and communion of the Church.

9. The temptation to listen only to those who are already involved in Church activities. This approach may be easier to manage, but it ultimately ignores a significant proportion of the People of God.